Mountain Bikers TROUNCED in Los Angeles!

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:34:09 +0100, "NeXuS" <[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>There has always been rivalry between horseriders and bikeriders, but the
>few ALWAYS spoil it for the many.

Most likely. In my experience equestrians as a group contain some of
the most arrogant and also the most pleasant users of the great
outdoors - but that's in the UK, where the dynamic is probably subtly
different. I have some great friends who ride horses and are staunch
allies in my campaigns against bad driving and speeding in particular.
One of the few people I know who shares my no speeding policy while
driving is a horse rider.

In one of my local recreational areas, a Crown Estate, there are
hiker-only, horse, bike and all-user trails. No problem at all.

I ride a recumbent, and some horses hate them. When I see a horse
coming I stop and get off, which generally averts any problems but
even then the animal sometimes has to be led past. Most riders are
cool with this, one or two have given me variations of "you shouldn't
have that thing on the road" - which, given that they are the ones
bringing a clearly barely controllable animal onto a public road,
sounds a lot like hypocrisy. I hate to think what will happen when
the next rice-rocket goes hammering past them.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[NeXuS]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:34:09 +0100, "NeXuS" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message <[email protected]>:
>
>>There has always been rivalry between horseriders and bikeriders, but the
>>few ALWAYS spoil it for the many.
>
> Most likely. In my experience equestrians as a group contain some of
> the most arrogant and also the most pleasant users of the great
> outdoors - but that's in the UK, where the dynamic is probably subtly
> different. I have some great friends who ride horses and are staunch
> allies in my campaigns against bad driving and speeding in particular.
> One of the few people I know who shares my no speeding policy while
> driving is a horse rider.
>
> In one of my local recreational areas, a Crown Estate, there are
> hiker-only, horse, bike and all-user trails. No problem at all.
>
> I ride a recumbent, and some horses hate them. When I see a horse
> coming I stop and get off, which generally averts any problems but
> even then the animal sometimes has to be led past. Most riders are
> cool with this, one or two have given me variations of "you shouldn't
> have that thing on the road" - which, given that they are the ones
> bringing a clearly barely controllable animal onto a public road,
> sounds a lot like hypocrisy. I hate to think what will happen when
> the next rice-rocket goes hammering past them.
>
I can agree with you fully, I used to cycle around Wiltshire a lot, (a few
routes around Lambourn too.)

I've ended up chatting with a few on their horses.

And as for the recumbant, do you use it off-road and you'll have to post a
piccy of it, (i've a mad fascination of them.)

 

[NeXuS]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:34:09 +0100, "NeXuS" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message <[email protected]>:
>
>>There has always been rivalry between horseriders and bikeriders, but the
>>few ALWAYS spoil it for the many.
>
> Most likely. In my experience equestrians as a group contain some of
> the most arrogant and also the most pleasant users of the great
> outdoors - but that's in the UK, where the dynamic is probably subtly
> different. I have some great friends who ride horses and are staunch
> allies in my campaigns against bad driving and speeding in particular.
> One of the few people I know who shares my no speeding policy while
> driving is a horse rider.
>
> In one of my local recreational areas, a Crown Estate, there are
> hiker-only, horse, bike and all-user trails. No problem at all.
>
> I ride a recumbent, and some horses hate them. When I see a horse
> coming I stop and get off, which generally averts any problems but
> even then the animal sometimes has to be led past. Most riders are
> cool with this, one or two have given me variations of "you shouldn't
> have that thing on the road" - which, given that they are the ones
> bringing a clearly barely controllable animal onto a public road,
> sounds a lot like hypocrisy. I hate to think what will happen when
> the next rice-rocket goes hammering past them.
>
I can agree with you fully, I used to cycle around Wiltshire a lot, (a few
routes around Lambourn too.)

I've ended up chatting with a few on their horses.

And as for the recumbant, do you use it off-road and you'll have to post a
piccy of it, (i've a mad fascination of them.)

 

[NeXuS]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:34:09 +0100, "NeXuS" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message <[email protected]>:
>
>>There has always been rivalry between horseriders and bikeriders, but the
>>few ALWAYS spoil it for the many.
>
> Most likely. In my experience equestrians as a group contain some of
> the most arrogant and also the most pleasant users of the great
> outdoors - but that's in the UK, where the dynamic is probably subtly
> different. I have some great friends who ride horses and are staunch
> allies in my campaigns against bad driving and speeding in particular.
> One of the few people I know who shares my no speeding policy while
> driving is a horse rider.
>
> In one of my local recreational areas, a Crown Estate, there are
> hiker-only, horse, bike and all-user trails. No problem at all.
>
> I ride a recumbent, and some horses hate them. When I see a horse
> coming I stop and get off, which generally averts any problems but
> even then the animal sometimes has to be led past. Most riders are
> cool with this, one or two have given me variations of "you shouldn't
> have that thing on the road" - which, given that they are the ones
> bringing a clearly barely controllable animal onto a public road,
> sounds a lot like hypocrisy. I hate to think what will happen when
> the next rice-rocket goes hammering past them.
>
I can agree with you fully, I used to cycle around Wiltshire a lot, (a few
routes around Lambourn too.)

I've ended up chatting with a few on their horses.

And as for the recumbant, do you use it off-road and you'll have to post a
piccy of it, (i've a mad fascination of them.)

 

[NeXuS]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:34:09 +0100, "NeXuS" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message <[email protected]>:
>
>>There has always been rivalry between horseriders and bikeriders, but the
>>few ALWAYS spoil it for the many.
>
> Most likely. In my experience equestrians as a group contain some of
> the most arrogant and also the most pleasant users of the great
> outdoors - but that's in the UK, where the dynamic is probably subtly
> different. I have some great friends who ride horses and are staunch
> allies in my campaigns against bad driving and speeding in particular.
> One of the few people I know who shares my no speeding policy while
> driving is a horse rider.
>
> In one of my local recreational areas, a Crown Estate, there are
> hiker-only, horse, bike and all-user trails. No problem at all.
>
> I ride a recumbent, and some horses hate them. When I see a horse
> coming I stop and get off, which generally averts any problems but
> even then the animal sometimes has to be led past. Most riders are
> cool with this, one or two have given me variations of "you shouldn't
> have that thing on the road" - which, given that they are the ones
> bringing a clearly barely controllable animal onto a public road,
> sounds a lot like hypocrisy. I hate to think what will happen when
> the next rice-rocket goes hammering past them.
>
I can agree with you fully, I used to cycle around Wiltshire a lot, (a few
routes around Lambourn too.)

I've ended up chatting with a few on their horses.

And as for the recumbant, do you use it off-road and you'll have to post a
piccy of it, (i've a mad fascination of them.)

 

[Gary S.]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:14:18 +0100, "NeXuS" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 16:07:59 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote
>> in message <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>So basically you all lied and blamed everything on one group instead of
>>>all taking responsibility and trying to come to a compramise. Typical
>>>lying environmentalists.
>>
>> I wonder who they'll blame next when this makes no difference
>> whatsoever? Watch this space for Vandespamm's Randomly Selected
>> Scapegoat Group of the Week.
>>
>> Guy
>
>So what do you recon causes more damage, horses or bikes? Bit obvious
>innit.
>
Typical Mikie "divide and conquer" strategy.

He still hates equestrian riders, and he still hates hikers. He will
work to ban them once they have been duped into helping him ban
mountain biking.

His ultimate goal is to keep all humans away from all wilderness, and
he will do anything to achieve that.

Objectively, horses would seems to cause a similar level of trail
damage, and a similar level of difficulty for other trail users.

But socially, they are perceived very much differently than mountain
bikers. I suspect that the image of both is inaccurate, and that the
truth is somewhere in the middle.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[The Wogster]

NeXuS wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 16:07:59 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote
>>in message <[email protected]>:
>>
>>
>>>So basically you all lied and blamed everything on one group instead of
>>>all taking responsibility and trying to come to a compramise. Typical
>>>lying environmentalists.
>>
>>I wonder who they'll blame next when this makes no difference
>>whatsoever? Watch this space for Vandespamm's Randomly Selected
>>Scapegoat Group of the Week.
>>
>>Guy
>
>
> So what do you recon causes more damage, horses or bikes? Bit obvious
> innit.
>

The issue comes down to one, tiny little factor, if everyone can prove,
that they will leave delicate areas of parks, and natural areas exactly
the same as they found them, then there would be no issue either way.

The problem is that mountain bikers like to bush whack, or at least
enough of them do, that others see it as a problem, the damage done by
one bush whacking mountain biker can take over a decade to recover from,
put enough of them together doing it, over an extended period of time,
and you can totally destroy the space for everyone....

Horses and road bikers tend to stick to roads and established trails....
So mountain bikers find themselves limited to either the same rules,
or banned outright.

W

 

[NeXuS]

"Gary S." <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:14:18 +0100, "NeXuS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 16:07:59 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote
>>> in message <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>So basically you all lied and blamed everything on one group instead of
>>>>all taking responsibility and trying to come to a compramise. Typical
>>>>lying environmentalists.
>>>
>>> I wonder who they'll blame next when this makes no difference
>>> whatsoever? Watch this space for Vandespamm's Randomly Selected
>>> Scapegoat Group of the Week.
>>>
>>> Guy
>>
>>So what do you recon causes more damage, horses or bikes? Bit obvious
>>innit.
>>
> Typical Mikie "divide and conquer" strategy.
>
> He still hates equestrian riders, and he still hates hikers. He will
> work to ban them once they have been duped into helping him ban
> mountain biking.
>
> His ultimate goal is to keep all humans away from all wilderness, and
> he will do anything to achieve that.
>
> Objectively, horses would seems to cause a similar level of trail
> damage, and a similar level of difficulty for other trail users.
>
> But socially, they are perceived very much differently than mountain
> bikers. I suspect that the image of both is inaccurate, and that the
> truth is somewhere in the middle.
>
> Happy trails,
> Gary (net.yogi.bear)
>
But on the whole they will never see eye to eye.

 

[NeXuS]

"The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NeXuS wrote:
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 16:07:59 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote
>>>in message <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So basically you all lied and blamed everything on one group instead of
>>>>all taking responsibility and trying to come to a compramise. Typical
>>>>lying environmentalists.
>>>
>>>I wonder who they'll blame next when this makes no difference
>>>whatsoever? Watch this space for Vandespamm's Randomly Selected
>>>Scapegoat Group of the Week.
>>>
>>>Guy
>>
>>
>> So what do you recon causes more damage, horses or bikes? Bit obvious
>> innit.
>
> The issue comes down to one, tiny little factor, if everyone can prove,
> that they will leave delicate areas of parks, and natural areas exactly
> the same as they found them, then there would be no issue either way.
>
> The problem is that mountain bikers like to bush whack, or at least enough
> of them do, that others see it as a problem, the damage done by one bush
> whacking mountain biker can take over a decade to recover from, put enough
> of them together doing it, over an extended period of time, and you can
> totally destroy the space for everyone....
>
> Horses and road bikers tend to stick to roads and established trails....
> So mountain bikers find themselves limited to either the same rules, or
> banned outright.
>
> W

That's the thing, there are a lot of recreational bikers and there are a lot
of more compettitive bikers too. I myself am one of the former. I got out
to have a good time and chill out whereas other just wanna thrash their guts
out, I personally don't see the point.

 

[The Wogster]

NeXuS wrote:
> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>NeXuS wrote:
>>
>>>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 16:07:59 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>in message <[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So basically you all lied and blamed everything on one group instead of
>>>>>all taking responsibility and trying to come to a compramise. Typical
>>>>>lying environmentalists.
>>>>
>>>>I wonder who they'll blame next when this makes no difference
>>>>whatsoever? Watch this space for Vandespamm's Randomly Selected
>>>>Scapegoat Group of the Week.
>>>>
>>>>Guy
>>>
>>>
>>>So what do you recon causes more damage, horses or bikes? Bit obvious
>>>innit.
>>
>>The issue comes down to one, tiny little factor, if everyone can prove,
>>that they will leave delicate areas of parks, and natural areas exactly
>>the same as they found them, then there would be no issue either way.
>>
>>The problem is that mountain bikers like to bush whack, or at least enough
>>of them do, that others see it as a problem, the damage done by one bush
>>whacking mountain biker can take over a decade to recover from, put enough
>>of them together doing it, over an extended period of time, and you can
>>totally destroy the space for everyone....
>>
>>Horses and road bikers tend to stick to roads and established trails....
>>So mountain bikers find themselves limited to either the same rules, or
>>banned outright.
>>
>>W
>
>
> That's the thing, there are a lot of recreational bikers and there are a lot
> of more compettitive bikers too. I myself am one of the former. I got out
> to have a good time and chill out whereas other just wanna thrash their guts
> out, I personally don't see the point.
>

And for those who like to "thrash their guts out" there are other issues
too, first they can wreck it for everyone, second they can wreck
themselves too, I have seen on TV, mountain bikers in action, and um,
that can't be good for a persons body, even with full suspensions......
Wonder how many of those guys will find that at age 50 they have
serious medical issues.....


W

 

[SailDesign]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> ONE MORE park with Yosemite rules: no bikes off of pavement!
>
> Mike
>
>
<snip self-congratulatory backslapping>

First of all, Mikey babe, the "of" is redundant, which you would have
realised if you had any kind of education. "no bikes off pavement"
would be fine.

Secondly, a trail that is used by a lot of horses is going to be so
chewed up that most MTBers won't want to ride it anyway. Talk about
destruction of trails!

Steve

 

[NeXuS]

"The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NeXuS wrote:
>> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>NeXuS wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 16:07:59 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>in message <[email protected]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>So basically you all lied and blamed everything on one group instead
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>all taking responsibility and trying to come to a compramise. Typical
>>>>>>lying environmentalists.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wonder who they'll blame next when this makes no difference
>>>>>whatsoever? Watch this space for Vandespamm's Randomly Selected
>>>>>Scapegoat Group of the Week.
>>>>>
>>>>>Guy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So what do you recon causes more damage, horses or bikes? Bit obvious
>>>>innit.
>>>
>>>The issue comes down to one, tiny little factor, if everyone can prove,
>>>that they will leave delicate areas of parks, and natural areas exactly
>>>the same as they found them, then there would be no issue either way.
>>>
>>>The problem is that mountain bikers like to bush whack, or at least
>>>enough of them do, that others see it as a problem, the damage done by
>>>one bush whacking mountain biker can take over a decade to recover from,
>>>put enough of them together doing it, over an extended period of time,
>>>and you can totally destroy the space for everyone....
>>>
>>>Horses and road bikers tend to stick to roads and established trails....
>>>So mountain bikers find themselves limited to either the same rules, or
>>>banned outright.
>>>
>>>W
>>
>>
>> That's the thing, there are a lot of recreational bikers and there are a
>> lot of more compettitive bikers too. I myself am one of the former. I
>> got out to have a good time and chill out whereas other just wanna thrash
>> their guts out, I personally don't see the point.
>
> And for those who like to "thrash their guts out" there are other issues
> too, first they can wreck it for everyone, second they can wreck
> themselves too, I have seen on TV, mountain bikers in action, and um, that
> can't be good for a persons body, even with full suspensions...... Wonder
> how many of those guys will find that at age 50 they have serious medical
> issues.....
>
That's so very true, I remember having a heated discussion with someone on
here about SS. I know it's all about making yourself better, but i'm not
into competing with myself. My body has worn down a bit, so I just go out
and take it easy, if I need to use gears I will.

Bottom line is this...... If you want to really push yourself, go into
compettitions. If you wanna take it easy, go for it, you'll probably last a
helluva lot longer.

 

[Slack]

The Wogster wrote:

> And for those who like to "thrash their guts out" there are other issues
> too, first they can wreck it for everyone, second they can wreck
> themselves too, I have seen on TV, mountain bikers in action, and um,
> that can't be good for a persons body, even with full suspensions......
> Wonder how many of those guys will find that at age 50 they have
> serious medical issues.....
>
>
> W
>
>
That was pretty funny, you little jelly fish.
--
Slack

 

[NeXuS]

"Slack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>> And for those who like to "thrash their guts out" there are other issues
>> too, first they can wreck it for everyone, second they can wreck
>> themselves too, I have seen on TV, mountain bikers in action, and um,
>> that can't be good for a persons body, even with full suspensions......
>> Wonder how many of those guys will find that at age 50 they have serious
>> medical issues.....
>>
>>
>> W
>>
>>
> That was pretty funny, you little jelly fish.

You don't think he has a valid point?

 

[The Wogster]

SailDesign wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>>ONE MORE park with Yosemite rules: no bikes off of pavement!
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>
> <snip self-congratulatory backslapping>
>
> First of all, Mikey babe, the "of" is redundant, which you would have
> realised if you had any kind of education. "no bikes off pavement"
> would be fine.
>
> Secondly, a trail that is used by a lot of horses is going to be so
> chewed up that most MTBers won't want to ride it anyway. Talk about
> destruction of trails!
>

The idea isn't that trails get destroyed, they already are, it's the
ground, plants and animal homes that are around the trails, that need to
be protected.....

W

 

[Jason]

* The Wogster <[email protected]>:
> SailDesign wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>
>>>ONE MORE park with Yosemite rules: no bikes off of pavement!
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>
>> <snip self-congratulatory backslapping>
>>
>> First of all, Mikey babe, the "of" is redundant, which you would have
>> realised if you had any kind of education. "no bikes off pavement"
>> would be fine.
>>
>> Secondly, a trail that is used by a lot of horses is going to be so
>> chewed up that most MTBers won't want to ride it anyway. Talk about
>> destruction of trails!
>>
>
> The idea isn't that trails get destroyed, they already are, it's the
> ground, plants and animal homes that are around the trails, that need to
> be protected.....
>
> W

If they really wanted to protect that they'd keep
everyone off the trails. As I understand it they just banned mtn bikers
so obviously protecting anything was just another typical
environmentalist and hiker lie.

Jason

 

[Gary S.]

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:47:49 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>ONE MORE park with Yosemite rules: no bikes off of pavement!
>
>Mike
>
>
>Subject: Griffth Park Master Plan meeting
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>The meeting was last night, so there hasn't been time to talk about it much.
>
>We WON every point that was of concern. The bikers, all white 30 something
>males, came off as rude, aggressive fools. Most of them were from out of town,
>not even local to the Park. It was a disaster for them.
>
Another Mikie supporter who is afraid to use his name, or Mikie
conveniently forgot it.

By Mikie's own standard, this makes him a LIAR.

Not a single one of Mikie's supporters ever gives their name, because
a mountain biker might do something bad to them.

Won't these equestrian people be surprised when they read what Mikie
really thinks of horses and riders. Mikie is using these naive people,
and then will turn around and try to ban their activity.

Unless Mikie will state publicly that horses cause no environmental
damage, and that he was wrong about them being an invasive non-native
species when he wrote that last year.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[The Wogster]

Jason wrote:
> * The Wogster <[email protected]>:
>
>>SailDesign wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>ONE MORE park with Yosemite rules: no bikes off of pavement!
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>><snip self-congratulatory backslapping>
>>>
>>>First of all, Mikey babe, the "of" is redundant, which you would have
>>>realised if you had any kind of education. "no bikes off pavement"
>>>would be fine.
>>>
>>>Secondly, a trail that is used by a lot of horses is going to be so
>>>chewed up that most MTBers won't want to ride it anyway. Talk about
>>>destruction of trails!
>>>
>>
>>The idea isn't that trails get destroyed, they already are, it's the
>>ground, plants and animal homes that are around the trails, that need to
>>be protected.....
>
> If they really wanted to protect that they'd keep
> everyone off the trails. As I understand it they just banned mtn bikers
> so obviously protecting anything was just another typical
> environmentalist and hiker lie.

Here's what it really comes down to....

If you can't enter and leave an area in such a way that you leave
absolutely NO evidence that you were there, stay out of that area. Big
knobby tires at high rates of speed, often leave a strip, where the
ground is laid bare, or a huge area of torn up land, where they skidded
the back wheel around, , and will likely stay that way for a number of
years.....

I find nothing more frustrating, then going deep into a park, and seeing
that some dumbass left a bunch of beer cans and a pile of other
garbage lying around, same reasons.

Obviously for that particular park, they feel that MB riders can't leave
the place as they found it, and that they needed to be limited in their
use. At least horse **** goes away after a short period of time.....

W

 

[Westie]

The Wogster wrote:
> NeXuS wrote:
>
>> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> NeXuS wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 16:07:59 -0300, Jason <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> in message <[email protected]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So basically you all lied and blamed everything on one group
>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>> all taking responsibility and trying to come to a compramise. Typical
>>>>>> lying environmentalists.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder who they'll blame next when this makes no difference
>>>>> whatsoever? Watch this space for Vandespamm's Randomly Selected
>>>>> Scapegoat Group of the Week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Guy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what do you recon causes more damage, horses or bikes? Bit
>>>> obvious innit.
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue comes down to one, tiny little factor, if everyone can
>>> prove, that they will leave delicate areas of parks, and natural
>>> areas exactly the same as they found them, then there would be no
>>> issue either way.
>>>
>>> The problem is that mountain bikers like to bush whack, or at least
>>> enough of them do, that others see it as a problem, the damage done
>>> by one bush whacking mountain biker can take over a decade to recover
>>> from, put enough of them together doing it, over an extended period
>>> of time, and you can totally destroy the space for everyone....
>>>
>>> Horses and road bikers tend to stick to roads and established
>>> trails.... So mountain bikers find themselves limited to either the
>>> same rules, or banned outright.
>>>
>>> W
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the thing, there are a lot of recreational bikers and there are
>> a lot of more compettitive bikers too. I myself am one of the
>> former. I got out to have a good time and chill out whereas other
>> just wanna thrash their guts out, I personally don't see the point.
>
>
> And for those who like to "thrash their guts out" there are other issues
> too, first they can wreck it for everyone, second they can wreck
> themselves too, I have seen on TV, mountain bikers in action, and um,
> that can't be good for a persons body, even with full suspensions......
> Wonder how many of those guys will find that at age 50 they have
> serious medical issues.....
>
>
> W

LOL! Ask how many equestrians have serious medical issues! And they
generally will have those issues before they are 40! I personally know
one person that was kicked in the face by a horse at a young age and had
plastic surgery for years, one that shattered a leg and has had their
ankle fused because the bone has disintegrated over time, one that has
continue back problems and state-funded sickness benefit for months at a
time because of a fall a few years ago, one that cannot use her left arm
because it was shattered a couple of years ago and she was nearly
killed,... and that's just in my close circle of friends and
acquaintances... the list goes on....

And you think mountain bikers are "hardcore"! LOL!
--
Westie

 

[Westie]

The Wogster wrote:
> Jason wrote:
>
>> * The Wogster <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> SailDesign wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ONE MORE park with Yosemite rules: no bikes off of pavement!
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip self-congratulatory backslapping>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, Mikey babe, the "of" is redundant, which you would have
>>>> realised if you had any kind of education. "no bikes off pavement"
>>>> would be fine.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, a trail that is used by a lot of horses is going to be so
>>>> chewed up that most MTBers won't want to ride it anyway. Talk about
>>>> destruction of trails!
>>>>
>>>
>>> The idea isn't that trails get destroyed, they already are, it's the
>>> ground, plants and animal homes that are around the trails, that need
>>> to be protected.....
>>
>>
>> If they really wanted to protect that they'd keep everyone off the
>> trails. As I understand it they just banned mtn bikers so obviously
>> protecting anything was just another typical environmentalist and
>> hiker lie.
>
>
> Here's what it really comes down to....
>
> If you can't enter and leave an area in such a way that you leave
> absolutely NO evidence that you were there, stay out of that area. Big
> knobby tires at high rates of speed, often leave a strip, where the
> ground is laid bare, or a huge area of torn up land, where they skidded
> the back wheel around, , and will likely stay that way for a number of
> years.....
>
> I find nothing more frustrating, then going deep into a park, and seeing
> that some dumbass left a bunch of beer cans and a pile of other garbage
> lying around, same reasons.
>
> Obviously for that particular park, they feel that MB riders can't leave
> the place as they found it, and that they needed to be limited in their
> use. At least horse **** goes away after a short period of time.....

I've been around horses for enough years to wonder what on earth these
people were thinking when they decided to ban bikes and not horses.
Frankly, I'd rather have to pass insane cyclists on the trails than
horses. Horses are too unpredictable at the best of times and as for
the trail damage? Who on earth thought that horses don't cause much
trail damage? I guess it's a question of volume. There can't be very
many horses using the trails.
--
Westie
>